King Gyanendra’s wishes greater role for himself

--Dr. Surendra K.C, Tribhuban University, Nepal

Dr. Surendra K.C is a well-known amicable personality in the Nepalese academic sector.

He has secured his doctoral degree in the domain of history and is a historian of international standing.

Currently he is associated with the History Department at the Tribhuban University.

Dr. K.C recently came up with a very brilliant but controversial idea that surprised many a brains in the country. In effect, Dr. K.C would like to see an "Enlightened Monarch" in this Himalayan Kingdom—a monarch that resembles the monarchs of Europe as back as in the 18 or 19th century.

What made his suggestion more interesting to the Nepali academia was that around the same time King Gyanendra revealed that He too wished to become a "Constructive monarch". The gist of both as Dr. K.C says in the following interview, is that the King should be provided some role if the system and the state-affairs were to function smoothly. According to Dr. K.C, the King too wishes to have some special role for himself in the constitution when he says that he wants to become a constructive monarch.

Dr. K.C is a prolific writer. He has several books to his credit. He writes articles on contemporary national issues in various Nepali broadsheet dailies and national tabloids.

Last week, we approached this scholar for an exclusive interview to which he pleasingly accepted. Below the results- Chief editor.

TGQ 1: The country is politically unstable and security-wise unstable to live in. Whom you blame Dr. K.C: The system or those who led the country for the last thirteen years or to some extent even the Maoists?

Dr. K.C: In my opinion the politics and the security situation of the country have come to this stage not by the contribution of any one single force over the years. Therefore, it could not be the responsibility of any one of the three mentioned in your question. Rather, partially all forces must share the responsibilities for the present day politics and the security situation.

TGQ 2: You Dr. K.C talk of the need of an "Enlightened Monarch". The King wishes to be a "Constructive Monarch". Do you find any similarity in your recent suggestion and the King’s fresh assertion?

Dr. K.C: Whether you talk of the need of an Enlightened Monarch or that of a Constructive Monarch, the fact is that the gist of both, to me at least, apparently hint at the fact that the King must have some role in the Constitution.

Though the two separate views have come from two different quarters but yet both in one way or the other does definitely hint that there is the need for a role for the King in the nation’s politics.

I do not dare to claim that my suggestions and the King’s assertions made later were both supplementary and complimentary to each other. However, what becomes amply clear from the King’s assertions that he surely would like to have a suitable role. If the King in an implied manner is seeking an active role in the country’s politics then I too would say that given the existing "power-balance" if there is no support from the King in the affairs of the State, what could be safely said is that the system can’t run smoothly and the consequences arising thereafter would really be very difficult to handle. The gist is that to secure the King’s support, he must be provided with some role in managing the affairs of the State. If that is denied to him, there is a likelihood that the King might not extend his support to the functioning of the State-affairs.

TGQ 3: Maoists more often than not criticize the US role in Nepal. But how you would wish to comment on their silence over India’s widely perceived penetrating role in Nepal’s internal affairs? Tell us, Dr. K.C why they apparently shield India? Or is it just an illusion to many of us or even a ploy to summarily defame the Maoists?

Dr. K.C: No one wages a war from all possible fronts. It could be that the Maoists do not wish to antagonize both India and the United States concurrently. At present what is visible is that they, the Maoists, appear to have taken an aggressive posture against the United States. This could be their exclusive strategy as well. Similarly, India too could have been playing politics under the cover of the Maoists insurgency. However, what is for sure is that the growing interest of the United States in Nepal is not only annoying India but China as well. The fact is also that the insurgents too need some one’s backing and support, which is perhaps compelling them to acquire a sort of exclusive strategy.

TGQ 4: Do you have any sure-shot formulae to solve the Maoists issue? What you think of international mediation? Do we need it or are sufficient to solve the crisis on our own? Your comments please!

Dr. K.C: The Maoists have clearly spelt out their bottom-line which is the Constituent Assembly. The other camp has yet to clarify its position for a solution to the Maoists imbroglio. Interestingly enough, the Maoists have not demanded a republican state which any communists of the sort of the Maoists would wish to have.

As regards to your question pertaining to the need of international mediation efforts, if there is a strong will on both the sides, the mediation from outside is not necessary. But if we don’t have that required will then no body can help.

TGQ 5: How you take the "agitation" of the parliamentary parties? Is it real or a ploy to bounce back to power as is being widely taken for granted by the Nepali population. Your opinions please!

Dr. K.C: It might hurt the tender hearts of the political parties who are currently on the path of agitation if some one dubs their agitation simply as untimely and irrelevant. But the fact is that it is exactly the same as describe above.

Contrary to that, the real issue confronting the nation today is in effect the Maoists issue. It should be the bounden duty of all to collectively find out a solution to this overly stretched issue of the insurgency. I hope the political parties now in agitation must be aware of this ground reality. Thus, one is forced to declare that their agitation is surely guided and influenced by their lust for power. The hard reality is that even if there is the formation of a party-government, it can’t function as desired unless the new-set secures the King’s active support. The other reality is that the country can’t proceed for the elections unless there is support of the Royal Nepal Army. Given these facts at hand, doesn’t it amply indicate that what in effect the political parties wish to secure from their ongoing agitation?

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past